21–30 of 82 posts
(Not interested in arguments/models as to why it would; just places where I might examine data showing where/when it has in fact worked out this way.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a property owning corporation, it might not be the best thing. However, in a free market, there wouldn't be anything they could do about it. Competition is supposed to reduce the profits of any industry over time. Barriers to new construction is of course the problem. If you had to fill out a lot of paperwork and get government permission to build a tractor, and there was a shortage of tractors, the solution woul…
In an unrestricted free market, someone would just buy up all the property in a constrained space to corner the market. That has definitely happened before in robber baron days. And honestly, if I wanted to live in a cess pool like Houston, I would move there. Houses are cheap enough (comparatively) but it is a huge icky sprawl.
I'm curious, has it really happened at a city level? Seems to me that it would get prohibitively expensive, since other owners would see the massive demand and push up the prices, but that's really just a supposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if you believe that the political process is controlled by the wealthy and you oppose the wealthy, then allowing more construction is your best bet. My concern with the political process is the exact opposite - it doesn't favor the wealthy but it should. In either case, eliminating the malthusian constraints on housing are a solution to the problem. See also this article on moreright illustrating how your view a…
How would San Francisco be better with 2 million people than with 1 million? Should it grow until it is as crowded as the cities people are fleeing in order to come to SF? What will happen is not that increased supply will have any effect but demand from talented people will drop as SF becomes as characterless as any other cheaper US city. As crowding rises the value of labor relative to land will fall, something ver…
It's also beneficial to the unemployed who want to go to SF. Saying it's generally harmful to the workers is only true if you ignore those left out by the restrictions.
It's not only a problem in SF, exploding rents is a problem all over the world. But is "barriers to new construction" the problem? No one ever explains those, just blames politicians. But for a property owning corporation it is obviously a poor idea to invest in new apartments because that would reduce the value of the ones they already got. It's not much different from OPEC not wanting to flood the market with oil.
That's kind of obvious is it not. Every time the UK government do something to "help first time buyers" it involves getting them into even more debt, and keeping the prices high. There are still the same number of properties around, and the same number of people competing for them. How can they honestly think this is helping in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if you believe that the political process is controlled by the wealthy and you oppose the wealthy, then allowing more construction is your best bet. My concern with the political process is the exact opposite - it doesn't favor the wealthy but it should. In either case, eliminating the malthusian constraints on housing are a solution to the problem. See also this article on moreright illustrating how your view a…
"it doesn't favor the wealthy but it should" Wtf? How do you get to that conclusion when inequality has been growing for the last 40 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if you believe that the political process is controlled by the wealthy and you oppose the wealthy, then allowing more construction is your best bet. My concern with the political process is the exact opposite - it doesn't favor the wealthy but it should. In either case, eliminating the malthusian constraints on housing are a solution to the problem. See also this article on moreright illustrating how your view a…
How would San Francisco be better with 2 million people than with 1 million? Should it grow until it is as crowded as the cities people are fleeing in order to come to SF? What will happen is not that increased supply will have any effect but demand from talented people will drop as SF becomes as characterless as any other cheaper US city. As crowding rises the value of labor relative to land will fall, something ver…
It's not only a problem in SF, exploding rents is a problem all over the world. But is "barriers to new construction" the problem? No one ever explains those, just blames politicians. But for a property owning corporation it is obviously a poor idea to invest in new apartments because that would reduce the value of the ones they already got. It's not much different from OPEC not wanting to flood the market with oil.
"In these areas, community resistance to housing, environmental policies, lack of fiscal incentives for local governments to approve housing, and limited land constrains new housing construction."
In other words: zoning.
I've spoken to both policy wonks and developers. IIRC, a good 70% of our land is zoned residential. Everything else is being redeveloped as fast as possible. The single biggest bottle neck is lack of available land.
Community resistant isn't simply just NIMBY. Methinks there's also self-image. Maybe like an inertia thing. Like the incumbents don't want to become "that kind of city".
Many are super reluctant to upzone residential areas (to permit greater density). And the upzones that do occur, are often via the backdoor, by introducing mass and public transit.
Resistance to redeveloping our South Lake Union area (think Amazon) was huge. A light industrial area with a smattering of hovels. A real dump. The political opposition was impressive. So a former mayor pushed thru a super silly trolley car and got the whole area upzoned. Clever.
It's not only a problem in SF, exploding rents is a problem all over the world. But is "barriers to new construction" the problem? No one ever explains those, just blames politicians. But for a property owning corporation it is obviously a poor idea to invest in new apartments because that would reduce the value of the ones they already got. It's not much different from OPEC not wanting to flood the market with oil.
And in SF I bet most of this market rate construction would be snapped up by overseas buyers from China looking for a save haven should the Chinese economy go really pear-shaped - just like London
That's kind of obvious is it not. Every time the UK government do something to "help first time buyers" it involves getting them into even more debt, and keeping the prices high. There are still the same number of properties around, and the same number of people competing for them. How can they honestly think this is helping in any way.